JUDGMENT P. K. Jain, J. (1.) HEARD Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. (2.) THE petitioners filed Suit No. 1179 of 1970 for declaration in respect of agricultural land and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs (petitioners) over the disputed land. It appears that during the pendency of the suit a compromise (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) was filed before the trial court which was verified before in charge Munsif on 22.12.1972. Before the compromise could be accepted by the trial court, objections were filed by the defendants. THE trial court overruled the objections vide order dated 1st March, 1975 and recorded the compromise. A Civil Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 1975 was preferred by the defendant Abdul Ghafoor respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition. THE appeal appears to have been transferred by the District Judge to the court of Additional Civil Judge (J. S. C. C.) who allowed the appeal holding that the Court had no Jurisdiction to pass the decree and further, that the compromise involved transfer of Sirdari rights in agricultural land and was thus against the public policy and was vitiated. THE appeal was allowed by the Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur on 28.1.1976. Civil revision against the judgment and order of the appellate court was filed before the High Court and was returned on 13.2.1976 for proper presentation before the District Judge, Gorakhpur and consequently the revision was filed before the District Judge. Gorakhpur on 25.2.1976. THE District Judge, Gorakhpur dismissed the revision as not maintainable vide order dated 3.3.1976 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). Against order dated 3.3.1976 the petitioners filed revision before the High Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.3.1979 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) wherein the High Court held that the revision was maintainable before the District Judge and consequently, remitted the case back to the District Judge for disposing of the revision filed earlier on merit. Again an objection was raised before the District Judge regarding maintainability of the revision which was sustained by the District Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th December, 1980 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). Again an objection was raised before the District Judge regarding maintainability of the revision which was sustained by the District Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th December, 1980 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). By the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the Judgment and orders of the District Judge dated 4.12.1980 and of the appellate court dated 28.1.1976 on the ground that once the order dated 3.3.1976 passed by the District Judge holding that the revision against the appellate order was not maintainable was set aside by the High Court vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition, the District Judge had no option except to decide the same on merit. Order dated 30.3.1979 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) operated as res judicata and the question of maintainability of the revision could not have been gone into by the learned District Judge and further that the appellate court acted without jurisdiction in holding that the compromise filed could not be recorded as it amounted to transfer of property not permissible by law. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed the present petition only on the ground that after the order of the High Court dated 30.3.1979 in Civil Revision No. 862 of 1976 the District Judge had no jurisdiction to question the maintainability of the revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the learned District Judge has not decided the revision on merit, by quashing the impugned order dated 4th December, 1980 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) the case may be remitted back to the District Judge for disposing of Civil Revision No. 862 of 1976 on merit. (3.) IT appears from the perusal of Annexure 6 copy of the order dated 3.3.1976 that the learned District Judge while rejecting the revision as not maintainable took the view that the appeal was transferred by the District Judge to the Court of Additional Civil Judge under Section 22 (1) of the Bengal. Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and the Civil Judge shall be deemed to have acquired the appellate jurisdiction of the District Judge even though the Court of Civil Judge is subordinate court of the District Judge. The learned District Judge relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Har Prasad Singh and others v. Ram Swarup and others, AIR 1973 All 390 . The learned District Judge relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Har Prasad Singh and others v. Ram Swarup and others, AIR 1973 All 390 . In a subsequent decision vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition the maintainability of the revision was, however, challenged entirely on different grounds viz., no petition for revision under Section 115 of the C. P. C. lies from an appellate judgment and the District Judge while passing the impugned order dated December 4th, 1980 relied upon the cases of Har Prasad Singh and others v. Ram Swarup and others (supra) and subsequent Full Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt. Limited v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others, 1979 ALJ 685. Thus, the maintainability of the revision before the District Judge in the order dated 3.3.1976 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and Judgment and order dated 4.12.1980 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) was challenged on different grounds. The High Court while remitting the case back to the District Judge vide judgment and order dated 30th March, 1979 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) considered the maintainability of the revision only from the point of view on which the learned District Judge had held vide order dated 3.3.1976 that the revision before the District Judge was not maintainable. Therefore, in my view, the order of the High Court (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) dated 30th March, 1979 would not operate as res judicata. (4.) BEFORE considering the legality or otherwise of the Impugned order dated 4th December, 1980, it would be relevant to consider the amendments made in Section 115, C. P. C. from time to time. As already pointed out above, the District Judge while passing the order dated 3.3.1976 had relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Har Prasad Singh's case (supra). That was the case decided by the High Court prior to the amendment made in Section 115, C. P. C. by the Central Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 which came into force on 1st February, 1977. That was the case decided by the High Court prior to the amendment made in Section 115, C. P. C. by the Central Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 which came into force on 1st February, 1977. Prior to the amendment of Act No. 104 of 1976, the original Section 115, C. P. C. reads as follows : 'The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate court appears : (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a Jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity, the High Court or the District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit." In its application to the State of U. P., Section 115, C. P. C. was amended by U. P. Act No. 14 of 1970. Section 3 of which provided that for the word High Court wherever occurring in Section 115, the words "High Court or District Court" shall be substituted and that at the end the following proviso shall be inserted : "Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to empower the District Court to call for the record of any case arising out of an original suit of the value of twenty thousand rupees or above." (5.) SECTION 115 in its application to the State of U. P. was again amended by SECTION 6 of the U. P. Act No. 37 of 1972 and after such amendment, SECTION 115, C. P. C. was applicable to the State of U. P. It reads as follows : 'The High Court in cases arising out of original suits of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, and the District Court in any other case may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court or District Court, as the case may be, and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears : (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a Jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material Irregularity. the High Court or the District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit." (6.) AFTER amendment of Section 115. the High Court or the District Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit." (6.) AFTER amendment of Section 115. C. P. C. by Central Amending Act No. 104 of 1976, original Section 115 was renumbered as 115 (1) and following proviso and sub-section (2) were added : "Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section ; vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where- (a) the order, if it has been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) that order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it made, (c) after sub-section (1) as so renumbered the following sub-section and explanation shall be inserted, namely : (2) The High Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Explanation.- In this section, the expression any case which has been decided "includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding." The effect of Central Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 is not relevant for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition since the revision before the District Judge was filed on 25.2.1976, much before coming into force after the Central Amending Act No. 104 of 1976. (7.) IN its application to the State of U. P., the provisions of Section 115. C. P. C. as amended by Central Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 were further amended by Code of Civil Procedure U. P. Amendment Act No. 31 of 1978 with effect from 1st August, 1978. The revisions which were filed before 1st February, 1977 before the District Court were, however, saved as Section 5 of the Amending Act, 1978 laid down transitory provision to the following effect: '5. The revisions which were filed before 1st February, 1977 before the District Court were, however, saved as Section 5 of the Amending Act, 1978 laid down transitory provision to the following effect: '5. Where a proceeding of the nature in which the District Court may call for the record and pass orders under Section 115 of the said Code as substituted by this Act was pending immediately before August 1, 1978- (a) in the District Court, such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times ; (b) in the High Court such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same as if this Act had not come into force." (8.) IN the instant case, the revision before the District Judge was filed on 25.2.1976, i.e. prior to the enforcement of Central Amending Act No. 104 of 1976. The District Judge rejected the revision vide order dated 3.3.1976 on different grounds that an appeal transferred under Section 22 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 confers jurisdiction upon the Civil Judge to exercise appellate Jurisdiction of the District Judge and, therefore, the revision against the appellate courts' judgment was not maintainable before the District Judge. The High Court while disposing of Civil Revision No. 862 of 1976 considered only this short question. The High Court also while deciding Civil Revision No. 862 of 1976 did not take into consideration the Full Bench decision of this Court wherein it was specifically held that no civil revision lies against an order passed by the subordinate court in exercise of its appellate or revisional Jurisdiction. The Full Bench in Har Prasad's case had categorically held that the words "in any other case" in the context, only refer to and have been used in contradistinction to the preceding words "in cases arising out of original suits". Therefore, it can be reasonably held, without doing any violence to the language of the amended Section 115 of the Code, that the words "in any other case" refer to and mean a case arising out of an original suit of which the valuation is below twenty thousand rupees. Such an interpretation would also lead to queer and, may be undesirable results, because under various laws and statutes. Such an interpretation would also lead to queer and, may be undesirable results, because under various laws and statutes. Judicial proceedings other than suits lie in and have to be dealt with by the civil courts but in respect of and over such proceedings, there will be no supervisory control by way of revision under the section. With effect from 1st April, 1978, the revisional jurisdiction was again bifurcated. The High Court was confined to cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings of the value of Rs. 20.000 or above, including such suits or other proceedings instituted before 1st August, 1978. The Jurisdiction of the District Court was in respect of any other case including a case arising out of an original suit or other proceeding instituted before such date. The Legislature has continued to use the phrase "cases arising out of original suits" and "other proceedings". The Full Bench in Jupiter Chit Fund Put. Limited's case referred with approval the interpretation given to this phrase by the Full Bench In Har Prasad's case. The Full Bench observed that the Legislature has continued to use the phrase "cases arising out of original suits". The interpretation placed upon this phrase by the Full Bench in Har Prasad Singh's case, AIR 1973 All 390 , will apply. The revisional Jurisdiction would hence not extend to cases arising out of the disposal of appeals or revisions by the District Court. The proviso is also In the same terms as the proviso added In 1973, namely, it uses the phrase "cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings". As already seen, it will not cover cases arising out of disposal of appeals or revisions. (9.) THE words "or other proceedings" in the phrase "cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings" refer to proceedings of final nature. These words have been added In order to bring within the purview of the revisional jurisdiction orders passed In proceedings of an original nature, which are not of the nature of suits, like arbitration proceedings. This phrase cannot include decisions of appeals or revisions, because then the Legislature will be deemed to have contradicted itself. THE words "or other proceedings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "original suits". They will not include appeals or revisions. This phrase cannot include decisions of appeals or revisions, because then the Legislature will be deemed to have contradicted itself. THE words "or other proceedings" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words "original suits". They will not include appeals or revisions. The Full Bench made following observations In paragraphs 22 and 23 : "An appeal or a revision is for some purposes treated as a continuation of a suit. THE appeal or the revision is the case which arises out of the suit. But when the appeal or the revision is decided, such decision creates a different or a fresh case which arises out of the appeal or the revision. It has an identity and existence different and apart from the case which arose out of the suit. It Is settled law that a judicial order passed by the trial court merges in the order passed by the appellate or revisional court; Shankar Ram Chandra v. Krishnaji Dattataraya, AIR 1970 SC 1 . How can it be said that an appellate or revisional decision in which the decision of the trial court has merged, is still a case arising out of the original suits. After merger that case, i.e., the decision arising out of the original suits vanishes. THE decision of the appeal or revision brings into existence a case which can properly be said to be arising out of the appeal or revision. THE decision of an appeal or revision is hence not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 even after the amendment in 1973." (10.) IN this view of the matter, the revision before the District Judge against the judgment and order was not maintainable. This aspect of the matter was not considered by this Court while passing the order dated 30.3.1979 in Civil Revision No. 862 of 1976. The well-settled position of law now is that the revision under Section 115. C. P. C. lies only against order passed in original suits and not against the judgment and order passed in exercise of appellate or revisional Jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. It was only during the period between 1.2.1977 till 1st August, 1978 that revisions against such orders were maintainable since during this period, the U. P. amendments were not enforced. C. P. C. lies only against order passed in original suits and not against the judgment and order passed in exercise of appellate or revisional Jurisdiction by the subordinate courts. It was only during the period between 1.2.1977 till 1st August, 1978 that revisions against such orders were maintainable since during this period, the U. P. amendments were not enforced. This Is clear from the conservations of the High Court in Full Bench decision in Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh Dayal and others. IN Para 30 it was observed as follows : "The District Court, disposed of the revision on 21st April. 1977. The revision in this Court was filed on 3rd November, 1977. It was admitted after preliminary hearing and notice was directed to issue on 13th March, 1978. This revision was filed long after February 1, 1977. When the Central Act came into force..............Under Section 115 as amended by Section 43 of the Central Act, revision lay to the High Court with effect from February 1, 1977, the State amendments stood repealed. Section 115 as amended by the Central Act conferred revisional jurisdiction on the High Court in respect of cases decided by courts subordinate thereto. Since the bifurcation of the revisional jurisdiction had vanished, the revision was competent in the High Court even if it was directed against an order passed by the District Court in a revision. The material condition under Section 115, as amended in 1976 was that there should be a case decided. The disposal of the revision was obviously a case decided." However, with the U. P. Amendment Act No. 31 of 1978 w.e.f. 1st August. 1978, this position came to an end and again the revisional powers by the High Court as well as District Court could be exercised only in cases arising out of original suits or other proceedings which did not include proceedings by way of appeal or revision. In the instant case, since the revision before the District Judge was filed prior to 1st February, 1977 against appellate order of the Civil Judge, in view of the interpretation given in the Full Bench decision in Har Prasad Singh's case and approved in Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt Limited's case, the revision against such appellate order was not maintainable. In the instant case, since the revision before the District Judge was filed prior to 1st February, 1977 against appellate order of the Civil Judge, in view of the interpretation given in the Full Bench decision in Har Prasad Singh's case and approved in Jupiter Chit Fund Pvt Limited's case, the revision against such appellate order was not maintainable. (11.) THE question whether the Civil Judge (now the Civil Judge, Senior division) after transfer of an appeal under Section 22 (1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 which lies to the District Judge exercises appellate powers of the District Judge is only academic and need not be disposed of so far as the present writ petition is concerned. (12.) IN view of the discussions made above, it is held that the revision against the appellate order of the Civil Judge (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) was not maintainable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.